Three Major Shifts in Contemporary Western Marxist Class Theory

As Western capitalist countries transition from modern industrial society to postmodern information society, the explanatory power of Marx’s traditional class theory for real-world society has faced some doubts and challenges. Some Western Marxist scholars have attempted to provide new theoretical interpretations of class issues in contemporary capitalist society, in order to supplement, update, and develop Marx’s class theory, adapting to the changed reality of the world. Consequently, Marxist class theory exhibits new dynamics. This article primarily elaborates on and critiques three major shifts in contemporary Western Marxism’s research on class structure theory, class division theory, and class struggle theory.

伴随西方资本主义国家由现代工业社会步入后现代信息社会，马克思传统的阶级理论对现实社会的解释力受到了一些质疑和挑战。一些西方马克思主义学者试图对当代资本主义社会的阶级问题作出新的理论阐释，以便补充、更新和发展马克思的阶级理论，适应变化了的现实世界。因此，马克思主义阶级理论呈现出新动态。本文主要是阐述和评论当今西方马克思主义在阶级结构理论、阶级划分理论和阶级斗争理论研究上的三大转变。

I. Class Structure: From Simplification to Complexification

一、阶级结构：从简单化走向复杂化

Class structure is the foundation of class analysis theory. In the early historical period of primitive accumulation of capital leading to the impoverishment of the proletariat, Marx believed that the modern capitalist mode of production created two major social classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which are the main subjects of capitalist social class structure; they are not only antagonistic but also tend toward polarization. Therefore, the class structure of capitalist society was relatively simplified, with conflicting interests between the two major classes. In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels pointed out: “The epoch of the bourgeoisie possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” [1]1 Raymond Aron (1905-1983): French philosopher, sociologist, and political commentator, known for his critiques of Marxist theory and totalitarianism.(P273) In *Capital*, Marx again identified this simplified class structure of “polar opposition” as inevitable for capitalist development. Although Marx did not believe that the class structure of capitalist society contained only the above two classes, but rather included intermediate strata such as small industrialists, small merchants, small rentiers, handicraftsmen, and peasants, because they were incompatible with the developmental requirements of modern large-scale machine industry, they would inevitably be transferred into the ranks of the proletariat.

阶级结构是阶级分析理论的基础。在资本主义原始积累导致无产阶级贫困化的历史初期，马克思认为现代资本主义生产方式创造了无产阶级和资产阶级两大主要社会阶级，他们是资本主义社会阶级结构的主体，他们不仅是对立的，而且是走向两极分化的。因此，资本主义社会阶级结构是相对简单化的，两大阶级之间具有利益冲突。在《共产党宣言》中，马克思和恩格斯指出：“资产阶级的时代有一个特点：它使阶级对立简单化了。整个社会日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营，分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级——无产阶级和资产阶级。”[1](P273）在《资本论》中，马克思再次指认这种“两极对立”的简单化阶级结构是资本主义发展的必然。马克思虽然并没有认为资本主义社会的阶级结构中只有以上两个阶级，而是包含有小工业家、小商人、小食利者、手工业者和农民等中间阶层。但由于他们与现代机器大工业的发展要求不相适应，因此必将转至无产阶级队伍中。

However, Marx’s above assertion does not seem to have become reality in advanced industrial society. Due to the new technological revolution and adjustments in industrial structure and employment structure, the class structure of contemporary capitalist society has undergone a historical transformation, changing from past simplification to present complexification. Western Marxists have conducted new research and interpretations on this.

然而，马克思的上述论断似乎并未在发达工业社会成为现实。由于新科技革命以及产业结构和就业结构的调整，当代资本主义社会的阶级结构发生了历史性转型，由过去的简单化变为现在的复杂化。西方马克思主义者对此做了新的研究和阐释。

1. The growth and development of the new middle class or new middle strata have changed the traditional polarizing class structure model.

1. 新中间阶级或新中产阶级的壮大和发展，改变了传统的两极分化的阶级结构模式

In the view of Western scholars, the “middle class” in modern capitalist society consists of two parts: first, the old middle class, including small farmers, small factory owners, small merchants, etc.; second, the new middle class, mainly referring to workers engaged in management, technical, and service work. From the historical perspective of the development and change of the middle class, since the 1970s, the rise of the new middle class in Western society has been the result of both the “managerial revolution” and the penetration of information technology, as well as the result of changes in industrial structure and occupational structure driven by the third scientific and technological revolution. With the development of management science and monopoly capitalism, the separation of enterprise ownership and management rights created a new social stratum composed of professional managers, which Western scholars call the “managerial revolution.” These individuals both perform the function of workers, producing surplus value, and perform the function of capital, enabling capital appreciation; therefore, their status and nature differ from both capitalists and ordinary workers. Due to the widespread application of technology, the improvement of workers’ quality, and the general development of the tertiary industry, the number of technical personnel and service workers among employees has increased dramatically, with this group accounting for over 60% of employed persons. German sociologist Emil Lederer believed that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, salaried employees, including commercial employees and technical personnel, occupy an “intermediate position.” American scholar C. Wright Mills called the white-collar strata engaged in commerce, professional technology, management, and office work the new middle class. It is mainly the managerial stratum and the intellectual stratum; their work has a certain degree of autonomy, they have relatively high incomes, and their ideologies vary; some do not identify themselves as the working class but as the middle class. Consequently, Western Marxists have proposed different views, such as Nicos Poulantzas calling them the “new petty bourgeoisie,” André Gorz calling them the “new working class,” Barbara and John Ehrenreich calling them the “professional-managerial class,” and Erik Olin Wright calling them “contradictory class locations.” Nevertheless, because they rely on selling their labor power to make a living, without changing the basic fact of being wage laborers, the “new middle class,” in its essence, is still a new development of the working class in the era of the knowledge economy, or a new stratum of the contemporary working class, that is, part of what Marx called the “collective worker.” As Chris Harman stated, in fact only 10% to 20% of the new middle class are in contradictory class locations; more are in the service stratum within the “collective worker.” [2]2 André Gorz (1923-2007): Austrian and French social philosopher and journalist, associated with existentialism and ecological politics, who theorized about the "non-class of non-workers" in post-industrial capitalism.(P37)

在西方学者看来，现代资本主义社会的“中间阶级”由两部分构成：一是旧的中间阶级，包括小农场主、小工厂主、小商人等；二是新的中间阶级，主要是指从事管理工作、技术工作和服务工作的劳动者。从中间阶级变化发展的历史来看，20世纪70年代以来，西方社会新中间阶级的崛起，既是“经理革命”和信息技术渗透的结果，也是第三次科技革命推动下产业结构和职业结构变迁的结果。随着管理科学和垄断资本主义的发展，企业所有权与管理权相分离，造成了由专业管理人员组成的新社会阶层，它被西方学者称为“经理革命”。这部分人既执行工人职能，生产剩余价值，又执行资本职能，使资本增值，因此，他们的地位和性质区别于资本家和一般工人。而由于科技的广泛应用、劳动者素质的提高以及第三产业的普遍发展，从业人员中技术人员和服务人员的数量急剧增加，这个群体在就业者中占有的比例超过60%。德国社会学家莱德勒认为，在无产阶级和资产阶级之间，包括商业雇员和技术人员的薪金雇员占据着一个“中间位置”。美国学者米尔斯把从事商业、专业技术、管理及办公室工作的白领阶层称为新中产阶级。它主要是管理阶层、知识阶层，工作有一定的自主性，拥有较高的收入，意识形态不一，有的不认同自己是工人阶级，而是中产阶级。为此，西方马克思主义者提出了不同观点，如普兰查斯称之为“新小资产阶级”，高兹称之为“新工人阶级”，埃伦莱克称之为“专业管理阶级”，赖特称之为“矛盾的阶级地位”。但尽管如此，由于他们是依靠出卖劳动力来维持生活，没有改变雇佣劳动者的基本事实，因此“新中间阶级”，究其实质还是知识经济时代工人阶级的新发展，或者说是当代工人阶级的新阶层，即马克思所说的“总体工人”的一部分。正如哈曼所说，事实上仅有10%～20%的新中间阶级是位于矛盾的阶级地位，更多的是处在“总体工人”中的服务阶层[2](P37）。

2. The internal stratum structure of the two major classes has changed, and the composition of the bourgeoisie and the working class as social groups has become more complex.

2. 两大阶级内部的阶层结构发生了变化，资产阶级和工人阶级作为社会集团的构成更为复杂

Regarding the bourgeoisie, against the backdrop of economic globalization, with the formation and development of the world capitalist system, the bourgeoisie is increasingly divided into the national bourgeoisie and the transnational bourgeoisie, and multiple strata have emerged, such as financial capitalists, industrial capitalists, and rentier capitalists. Due to the separation of capitalist ownership and management rights, the managerial stratum, as enterprise management personnel, enjoys the right to possess and use capital and can obtain certain option income; especially, some senior managers have become a new stratum of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the internal composition of the bourgeoisie has become complex. Regarding the working class, the ranks of wage laborers in contemporary capitalist society have expanded rapidly, with their absolute numbers having increased. The concept of the working class now extends far beyond the factory proletariat or industrial proletariat of Marx’s time, reaching into management departments, service departments, and cultural departments; its scope has expanded from productive workers to non-productive workers. Moreover, the number of productive workers has significantly decreased, while the number of non-productive workers has greatly increased, with considerable differences in social status and income among various strata, showing a multi-layered tendency within the working class’s internal structure. With the improvement of the working class’s cultural quality and the intellectualization, technologization, and professionalization of work methods, the number of traditional “blue-collar workers” marked by manual labor has significantly decreased, while the number of “white-collar workers” marked by mental labor has greatly increased. Furthermore, the emergence of worker stock ownership plans and “rentier wage laborers” in Western countries has not only affected the ideological consistency of the working class but also made labor-capital relations intricate and complex, with relatively obvious differentiation and fragmentation within the working class. Consequently, Herbert Marcuse proposed the “integration thesis” of the working class, Poulantzas proposed the “atrophy thesis” of the working class, and Gorz advocated the “disappearance thesis” of the working class. These assertions, all narrow interpretations of the working class from a traditional perspective, misread the changing working class to some extent, interpreting the historical transformation of the working class structure from singularity to diversity as “the class tending towards extinction,” which does not conform to the facts.

就资产阶级而言，在经济全球化背景下，随着世界资本主义体系的形成和发展，资产阶级日益分化为国家资产阶级与跨国资产阶级，并出现了金融资本家、工业资本家和食利资本家等多个阶层。由于资本主义所有权与经营权的分离，作为企业管理人员的经理阶层享有资本的占有权和使用权，他们可以获得一定的期权收益，尤其是部分高级经理已经成为资产阶级的一个新阶层。因此，资产阶级内部构成变得复杂了。就工人阶级而言，当代资本主义社会雇佣劳动者队伍迅速扩大，其人数的绝对数字已增加。现在工人阶级的概念早已越出马克思生活时代的工厂无产者或产业无产者的范围，而是延伸至管理部门、服务部门和文化部门，其范围从生产性工人扩大至非生产性工人。而且生产性工人数量明显减少，非生产性工人数量大大增加，各阶层之间在社会地位和收入方面都出现了较大的差异，工人阶级内部结构出现了多层次倾向。随着工人阶级文化素质的提高以及工作方式的知识化、技术化和专业化，传统的以体力劳动为标志的“蓝领工人”数量明显减少，以脑力劳动为标志的“白领工人”数量大大增加。此外，西方国家工人持股制及“食利雇佣劳动者”的出现，不仅影响了工人阶级意识形态的一致性，而且使得劳资关系变得错综复杂，工人阶级内部的分化和分裂较为明显。由此，马尔库塞提出工人阶级“融合论”，普兰查斯提出“工人阶级萎缩论”，高兹鼓吹工人阶级“消失论”。这些论断都是从传统观点对工人阶级所作的狭义理解，对变化中的工人阶级作了某种误读，把工人阶级结构由单一化向多样化的历史转型解释为“阶级趋于消亡”，是不符合事实的。

3. The class consciousness of social members tends to weaken, and social identity shows an individualization tendency.

3. 社会成员阶级意识趋于淡化，社会身份认同显现个体化倾向

Alongside the decline of the traditional working class and the rise of the new middle class following the new technological revolution, a "de-classing" theory of pluralistic social structure has emerged. Through an analysis of the structural changes in the working class in Britain and internationally, Hester argues that the class consciousness of the present-day working class has become very weak; most workers do not realize that they have interests opposed to those of the ruling class, and the working class is no longer a "class-for-itself." Some contemporary Western scholars, when analyzing Marxist research on social class structure, have shifted from macro-analytical methods to individualist and micro-analytical methods. Clark and Lipset interpret the diversification of lifestyles as the "fragmentation" of social stratification, declaring that "class is increasingly becoming an outdated concept." Beck puts forward the view of "individualization of social inequality," arguing that social inequality still exists in Western countries today, but this inequality is no longer traditional class differentiation but rather differences between individuals. People's class identification with social identity has weakened, and an individualization process centered on the individual is taking shape. "A variant of social structure that neither Marx nor Weber predicted will acquire its significance; class society will fade away in an individualized employee society." [3]3 Olivier Schwartz: French sociologist known for his work on the working class and social change.(P122) The above research focuses on the level of individual consciousness, substituting subjective individual feelings for the objective existence of class, abstractly understanding the social and class nature of human beings from an individual perspective, and obscuring the essence of capitalist society as a class society. Although modern society is increasingly open, mobility between upper and lower strata has increased, and the modes of employment, development opportunities, and ideological concepts of social members have become diversified, it is indeed as the British scholar Scase states: "These have not made class outdated in explaining the objective structure of opportunities for access in society; social mobility in contemporary capitalist society has not led to the demise of class, and class is still determined by social structure." [4](P35) Therefore, the transformation of the Western social class structure from simplification to complexity does not mean that class has disappeared from social relations or that class analysis has become irrelevant.

伴随新技术革命后传统工人阶级的衰落和新中产阶级的兴起，浮现了“去阶级化”的多元社会结构理论。赫斯通过对英国及国际上整个工人阶级结构变化的分析，认为现在工人阶级的阶级意识已经非常薄弱，大多数工人并没有意识到他们有着与统治阶级相对立的利益，工人阶级已不再是“自为阶级”了。当代有的西方学者在分析马克思主义对社会阶级结构的研究时由宏观分析法转为个人主义方法、微观分析法。克拉克和李普塞特将生活方式的多样化解释为社会分层的“碎片化”，宣称“阶级越来越成为一个过时的概念”。贝克提出“社会不平等的个体化”观点，认为社会不平等在当今西方国家依然是存在的，但这种不平等已不是传统的阶级分化，而是个体之间的差异。人们对社会身份的阶级认同弱化，以个人为中心的个体化过程正在形成。“一种马克思和韦伯都没有预测到的社会结构的变体将获得其重要意义，阶级社会将在一个个体化的雇员社会黯淡下去。”[3](P122）以上研究侧重于个体意识层面，是以个人主观感受代替阶级的客观存在，是从个体的角度抽象理解人的社会性、阶级性本质，掩盖了资本主义社会是阶级社会的实质。虽然现代社会越来越开放，上下层级之间的流动性增强了，社会成员的就业方式、发展机会以及思想观念变得多元化，但确如英国学者斯凯思所言：“这些并没有导致阶级在解释社会中获取机会的客观结构时过时，当代资本主义社会的社会流动没有导致阶级的消亡，阶级仍由社会结构决定。”[4](P35）因此，西方社会阶级结构由简单化向复杂化的转型，并不意味着阶级已从社会关系中消失了或者说阶级分析已经无关紧要了。

II. Class Division: From a Unitary Criterion to Pluralistic Criteria

二、阶级划分：从一元标准走向多元标准

In class division, Marx adhered to the economy as a unitary criterion, emphasizing the economic foundation of class formation and its economic relations. He fundamentally regarded the condition of ownership of the means of production as the objective and fundamental criterion for class division. Although Marx also stressed the importance of political and ideological criteria in class analysis, he based this on the ownership of the means of production to distinguish between exploiting and exploited classes in society. However, with changes in the class situation of contemporary capitalist society, Western Marxists have moved from a unitary criterion for class division to pluralistic criteria, arguing that class differentiation in today's society exists not only in the economic sphere but also involves the political and cultural spheres. Their theories of class division based on criteria of exploitation, power, and knowledge have expanded and altered the connotation of the traditional concept of class, and their analytical methods require critical examination.

在阶级划分上，马克思坚持以经济为一元标准，看重的是阶级形成的经济基础及其经济关系。他从根源上把生产资料占有状况作为阶级划分的客观根本标准。虽然马克思也强调政治和意识形态标准在阶级分析中的重要性，但他是以生产资料所有制为基础划分出社会的剥削阶级和被剥削阶级。然而，随着当代资本主义社会阶级状况的变化，西方马克思主义者从阶级划分的一元标准走向多元标准，认为当今社会的阶级分化不仅存在于经济领域，而且也涉及政治和文化领域。他们以剥削、权力和知识为标准的阶级划分理论，扩展和延异了传统阶级概念的内涵，其分析方法需加以辨析。

1. Class Division Based on the Criterion of Exploitation

1. 以剥削为标准的阶级划分

In Wright's view, Marx divided classes according to economic relations; the essence of class contradiction is interest contradiction, and thus exploitation is the core category of Marxist class analysis. However, the forms of exploitation in today's society have diversified, including not only economic exploitation based on productive capital but also organizational exploitation based on managerial capital and technical exploitation based on credentials. Economic exploitation is the exploitation of the propertyless by the propertied; organizational exploitation is the exploitation of the managed by managers who possess organizational assets; technical exploitation is the exploitation of ordinary workers by experts and professionals who possess credentials and scarce skills. That is, they all appropriate the surplus value created by the working class through the capital they possess. Accordingly, in his class schema, Wright divides contemporary capitalist society into the bourgeoisie, which possesses productive capital; "contradictory class locations" [1]1 Raymond Aron (1905-1983): French philosopher, sociologist, and political commentator, known for his critiques of Marxist theory and totalitarianism. that possess organizational capital and technical capital; and the proletariat, which possesses labor power capital. In this way, the category of exploitation is expanded, class boundaries become blurred, and the scope of the proletariat is narrowed. So, can Wright's concept of "contradictory class locations" be established? According to Marx's view, class division cannot be based on income status but must look at relations of production. General managers and technical personnel, being employed by the capitalist class, remain part of the proletariat. Although they receive higher incomes, if this is remuneration based on complex labor or labor capacity, it does not constitute exploitation and therefore cannot serve as a criterion for class division.

在赖特看来，马克思划分阶级是依据经济关系，阶级矛盾的实质是利益矛盾，因而，剥削是马克思主义阶级分析的核心范畴。但是，现今社会的剥削形式多样化了，不仅有基于生产资本的经济剥削，而且还有基于管理资本的组织剥削和基于资格证书的技术剥削。经济剥削是有产者对无产者的剥削，组织剥削是拥有组织资产的管理者对被管理者的剥削，技术剥削是拥有资格证书、掌握稀缺性技术的专家和专业技术人员对普通工人的剥削。也就是说，他们都通过自己拥有的资本分割了工人阶级创造的劳动剩余价值。为此，在阶级图式上，赖特将当代资本主义社会划分为掌握生产资本的资产阶级、掌握组织资本和技术资本的“矛盾阶级”和拥有劳动力资本的无产阶级。这样，剥削范畴被扩展了，阶级边界变得模糊了，而且，无产阶级的范围缩小了。那么，赖特的“矛盾阶级”概念能否成立呢？根据马克思的观点，划分阶级不能看收入状况，而是要看生产关系，一般管理人员与技术人员受资本家阶级雇佣，依然是无产阶级的一部分。虽然他们获得了较高的收入，但如果是基于复杂劳动或劳动能力的报酬分配，则不属于剥削，也就不能作为阶级划分的标准。

Van Parijs, building on Wright, treats jobs as property for class division. In his view, those who possess job property are the employed class, and those who do not possess job property are the unemployed class. If "job property" were distributed equally, the situation of the unemployed would improve, and "the division between the employed class and the unemployed class is more important than the division between workers and capitalists." [5](P153) Although he identifies competition between the unemployed and the employed in Western society, this is merely a differentiation within the proletariat, not a class antagonism based on economic exploitation. The root cause of unemployment for the working class lies in the capitalist system, not in competition among workers. Only by abolishing capitalist private ownership and the wage-labor relationship and liberating the proletariat can the problems arising from "capital accumulation" be fundamentally resolved. Therefore, this division is inadvisable.

范帕里斯在赖特的基础上把工作视为财产进行阶级划分。在他看来，拥有工作财产的人是就业阶级，没有工作财产的人是失业阶级，如果将“工作财产”平均分配，失业者的状况会得到改善，“就业阶级和失业阶级的划分比工人和资本家的划分更重要”[5](P153）。虽然他看到了西方社会失业者与就业者之间的竞争，但是这只是无产阶级内部的一种分化，而不是基于经济剥削的阶级对立。因为，工人阶级失业的根源在于资本主义制度，而非工人之间的竞争。只有消灭资本主义私有制和雇佣关系，解放无产阶级，才能从根本上解决“资本积累”带来的问题。因此，这种划分是不可取的。

2. Class Division Based on the Criterion of Power

2. 以权力为标准的阶级划分

Some Western Marxists argue that class division based on the economic criterion cannot fully grasp the connotation of the concept of class. Marx's terms "ruling class" and "ruled class" actually classify social members according to the criterion of political power. Consequently, Poulantzas explains class formation through overdetermination, particularly emphasizing the importance of the power criterion for class division. He argues that the contemporary capitalist state is still ruled by the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat is in a ruled position, but the differentiation of the middle strata is related to their position in the social power structure.

一些西方马克思主义者认为以经济为标准的阶级划分并不能完整把握阶级概念的内涵，马克思的“统治阶级”和“被统治阶级”术语实际上是以政治权力为标准对社会成员的分类。由此，普兰查斯以多元决定论解释阶级的形成，特别强调了权力标准对阶级划分的重要性。他认为当代资本主义国家依然受资产阶级统治，无产阶级处于被统治地位，但中间阶层的分化与其在社会权力结构中的地位相关。

The German scholar Dahrendorf argues that with the intervention of the capitalist state in economic life, the number of government bureaucrats has increased, management functions have strengthened, and power has become an important factor in class differentiation. In his book *Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society*, he provides a relatively systematic exposition. He argues that the ruling class as described by Marx can be divided into a ruling class in the economic sphere and a ruling class in the political sphere. The economic ruling class relies on capital power, while the political ruling class relies on power capital. In modern capitalist society, the class that owns productive capital is the controlling force in society, so the bourgeoisie is the ruling class of society. But in post-capitalist society, the class that controls society does not do so through the possession of the means of production but through the possession of political power; thus, the ruling class of society is primarily the class that holds political power. This class is the "service class," including private executives, leading members of state administrative departments, and upper-level civil servants, who become the ruling stratum because they possess power resources. Accordingly, using power as a criterion, he divides post-capitalist society into an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class, arguing that whether an individual owns the means of production is unimportant; what matters is their position in political society. In post-capitalist society, "the industrial ruling class and ruled class are no longer identical with the political ruling class and ruled class. In other words, there are in principle two independent fronts of struggle. Outside the enterprise, a manager may be just a citizen, while a worker may be a member of parliament; their class position in terms of capital and labor no longer determines their authority position in political society." [6](P99)

德国学者达伦多夫认为随着资本主义国家对经济生活的干预，政府公务员增多了，管理职能加强了，权力在阶级分化中也成为重要因素。他在《工业社会的阶级和阶级冲突》一书中，作了较为系统的阐述。认为马克思所说的统治阶级可以分为经济领域的统治阶级和政治领域的统治阶级，经济统治阶级依靠的是资本权力，政治统治阶级依靠的是权力资本。在现代资本主义社会，占有生产资本的阶级是社会的控制力量，因而资产阶级是社会的统治阶级。但在后资本主义社会，控制社会的阶级力量不是对生产资料的占有，而是对政治权力的占有，因而社会的统治阶级主要是掌握政治权力的阶级。这个阶级是“服务阶级”，包括私人主管、国家行政管理部门的领导成员、上层公务员等，他们因拥有权力资源而成为统治阶层。据此，他以权力为标准将后资本主义社会划分出上层阶级、中层阶级和下层阶级，认为个人是否占有生产资料不重要，重要的是他在政治社会中的地位。在后资本主义社会里，“工业的统治阶级和被统治阶级以及政治社会的统治阶级和被统治阶级不再是等同的了。换言之，原则上有了两个独立的斗争战线。在企业以外，经理可能只是一个公民，而工人却是一名国会议员，他们的劳资阶级地位不再决定他们在政治社会中的权威地位。”[6](P99)

Dahrendorf separates politics from the social structural system, recognizing the impact of power inequality on class inequality. However, according to historical materialism, the economic base determines the political superstructure, and politics serves a specific economy; a class that is dominant in material life is also dominant in political and spiritual life. Therefore, in capitalist countries, the stratum that holds state power is, in the final analysis, an agent of the bourgeoisie. A few workers may enter the middle and upper strata of society, but the entire working class remains at the lower level of the power structure, which is logically consistent with being dominated by capital in the economic structure. As Marx said: "The modern state power is merely a committee that manages the common affairs of the entire bourgeoisie." [7](P27)

达伦多夫把政治从社会结构体系中独立出来，看到了权力不平等对阶级不平等的影响。但根据唯物史观，经济基础决定政治上层建筑，政治为一定的经济服务，一个阶级在物质生活上占统治地位也就在政治和精神生活上占统治地位。因此在资本主义国家，掌握国家政权的阶层说到底还是资产阶级代理人，少数工人也许会进入社会中上阶层，但整个工人阶级依然处于权力结构的下层，与经济结构中受资本统治在逻辑上相一致。正如马克思所说：“现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会。”[7](P27)

3. Class Division Based on Knowledge (Culture)

3. 以知识（文化）为标准的阶级划分

With the entry of industrial capitalist society into the era of the knowledge economy, some Western Marxists have turned to class division based on knowledge or culture. American scholar John Kenneth Galbraith divides the social capital that causes class differentiation into land capital, production capital, and knowledge capital. Due to the significantly enhanced status and role of science and technology in social development, knowledge capital has begun to replace production capital as the most important capital. If those who control production capital are the bourgeoisie, then those who possess knowledge capital are the knowledge class. Landlords, because they owned land, became the rulers of the feudal era; capitalists, because they owned production capital, became the rulers of the capitalist era; intellectuals, because they own knowledge capital, become the rulers of the knowledge economy era. Influenced by his theory, Daniel Bell, in *The Coming of Post-Industrial Society*, points out that the axial principle of industrial society is wealth capital, while the axial principle of post-industrial society is knowledge and technology. The "knowledge class" or "technical class" that controls knowledge resources occupies a central position in social life [8](P243). This type of elite does not gain power through economic means but through education, knowledge, and technology. That is, the scientific and technological revolution is the decisive new characteristic of the social structure; theoretical knowledge occupies a central position; the division between the scientific-technical class and the non-scientific-technical class is the essence of the new stratification system. In post-industrial society, because the proportion of the working class is getting smaller and smaller, its strength is increasingly weak. It is impossible for it to become the main revolutionary force as Marx described. The class distinction in capitalist society is not drawn according to the first schema Marx pointed out—division by social relations—but according to the second schema Marx pointed out—division by the development of productive forces.

伴随工业资本主义社会进入知识经济时代，一些西方马克思主义者转向以知识或文化为标准进行阶级划分。美国学者加尔布雷斯把引起阶级分化的社会资本分为土地资本、生产资本和知识资本，由于科学技术在社会发展中的地位和作用显著提升，知识资本开始取代生产资本成为最重要的资本。如果说掌握生产资本的是资产阶级，那么，拥有知识资本的就是知识阶级。地主因为拥有土地成为封建时代的掌权者，资本家因为拥有生产资本成为资本时代的掌权者，知识分子因为拥有知识资本成为知识经济时代的掌权者。在他的理论影响下，贝尔在《后工业社会的来临》一书中指出，工业社会的中轴是财富资本，后工业社会的轴心是知识和技术，掌握知识资源的“知识阶级”或“技术阶级”处于社会生活的核心地位[8](P243）。这类精英人物不是依靠经济途径获得权力，而是通过教育、知识和技术获得权力。即科学技术革命是社会结构的决定性新特点，理论知识居于中心地位，科技阶级与非科技阶级之间的分野，是新的阶层制度的实质。在后工业社会中，工人阶级由于所占比例越来越小，其力量越来越弱，不可能按马克思所说的那样，成为革命的主要力量，资本主义社会阶级区分并非按马克思所指的第一种图式——社会关系划分，而是按照马克思所指的第二种图式——生产力发展划分的。

American scholar Alvin Gouldner proposed the view that "cultural capital is the economic foundation of the new class." [9](P34) In his book *The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class*, he explicitly names modern humanistic intellectuals and technical intellectuals as a new class, the cultural bourgeoisie. Gouldner argues that intellectuals differ from both the old bourgeoisie, which owns monetary capital, and the proletariat, which sells its labor power; because they control cultural capital, they become the cultural bourgeoisie. Culture is the universalization of capital, while capital is the privatization of culture. Therefore, the economic foundation of the new class of intellectuals is cultural capital, not traditional wealth capital. Accordingly, social classes can be divided into the bourgeoisie, the knowledge class, and the proletariat, and the knowledge class has formed a new class struggle with the bourgeoisie, potentially becoming the future ruling class.

美国学者古德纳提出“文化资本是新阶级的经济基础的观点。”[9](P34）他在《知识分子的未来和新阶级的兴起》一书中，明确将现代人文知识分子和技术知识分子作为文化资产阶级这种新阶级加以命名。古德纳认为知识分子既不同于拥有货币资本的旧资产阶级，也不同于出卖劳动力的无产阶级，他们因为控制文化资本而成为文化资产阶级。文化是资本的普遍化，而资本是私有化的文化。因此，知识分子新阶级的经济基础是文化资本而不是传统的财富资本。据此，社会阶级可以划分为资产阶级、知识阶级和无产阶级，且知识阶级与资产阶级形成了新阶级斗争，有望成为未来的统治阶级。

We believe that the intellectual stratum, as white-collar workers, is the leading force in modern social development. They are also oppressed by capitalism and have the ambition to pursue political liberation. However, positioning class based on knowledge or cultural capital only emphasizes the enhanced status and role of social groups that master knowledge, technology, and culture; it cannot be understood in the sense of exploitation and antagonism, because we cannot divide society into a cultural bourgeoisie and a cultural proletariat based on "knowledge and cultural capital." Moreover, if the intellectual stratum does not control the economic base and state power, it cannot become the ruling class of society.

我们认为，知识分子阶层作为白领工人是现代社会发展的主导力量，他们同样受到资本主义的压迫，有追求政治解放的抱负。但是以知识或文化为资本进行阶级定位只是强调了掌握知识、技术和文化的社会群体其地位和作用的提升，并非能够在剥削和对抗的意义上进行理解，因为我们不能根据“知识和文化资本”来划分出文化资产阶级与文化无产阶级。而且，知识分子阶层如果不掌握经济基础和国家政权，是无法成为社会的统治阶级的。

III. Class Struggle: From Political Confrontation to Democratic Movements

三、阶级斗争：从政治对抗走向民主运动

Class struggle is an important component of Marx's class viewpoint. The *Communist Manifesto* states: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. When class relations are antagonistic, class struggle is inevitable. Marx viewed modern capitalist society as the last class society. The struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie first involves achieving political liberation through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, followed by social liberation, until humanity moves from a class society to a classless society. However, at least since the end of World War II, due to changes in Western capitalism in economic, political, cultural, social, and other aspects, the traditional working class has shrunk, and large-scale class struggle has become almost invisible. In the words of Western Marxists, "the working class is increasingly less revolutionary." Raymond Aron even pointed out that "the idea of a decisive struggle between classes is a thing of the past." As class struggle declines and wanes, new social movements aimed at fighting for civil rights and various life opportunities are flourishing. Some Western scholars have provided new explanations for this, shifting the theory of class struggle from the macro-economic and political sphere to the micro-social and cultural sphere.

阶级斗争是马克思阶级观点的重要内容。《共产党宣言》指出：迄今为止，一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。当阶级关系是一种对抗性关系时，阶级斗争就是必然的。马克思把现代资本主义社会看作是最后一个阶级社会，无产阶级反对资产阶级的斗争首先是通过建立无产阶级专政，获得政治解放，然后是社会解放，直至人类由阶级社会进入无阶级社会。然而，至少自二战结束以来，因西方资本主义在经济、政治、文化、社会等诸多方面发生了变化，传统的工人阶级在萎缩，大规模的阶级斗争也几乎难以见到，用西方马克思主义者的话说就是“工人阶级越来越不革命了”。阿隆甚至指出“阶级间进行决定性斗争的思想已成往事”。在阶级斗争日益衰落和式微的同时，以争取公民权利和各种生活机会为指向的新社会运动却是方兴未艾，一些西方学者对此进行了新的阐发，使阶级斗争理论由宏观经济政治领域转移到微观社会文化领域。

Jürgen Habermas, a leading figure of post-Marxism, believes that Marx's theory of class struggle based on conflicts of interest is now difficult to explain the reality of contemporary capitalist society. In the early stage of capitalism, due to conflicts of interest between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the production sphere, when these conflicts of interest intensified, they evolved into class struggle. But in the late stage of capitalism, to resolve the legitimacy crisis of the system, capitalist states adopted measures of state intervention in economic activities, thereby mitigating class antagonism and causing class struggle to proceed in a more moderate form. For example, they influence the production structure through policies promoting economic growth and prosperity; they remedy the adverse consequences of capitalism by establishing social security systems; they dissolve conflicts of interest between classes by confining social conflicts of interest to the individual sphere. French scholar Olivier Schwartz, in explaining the reasons for the retreat of the working class in Western societies, points out that due to the diversification of the internal structure of the working class, the working class is composed of a motley assortment of different strata. The education received by the new generation of workers and the lifestyles they choose differ greatly from the past. This makes it difficult for workers, even those engaged in the same type of labor, to form a unified class consciousness and common identity, due to differences in technical grades or value concepts. Especially compared to employed workers with jobs, society continuously produces many unemployed and semi-unemployed people. André Gorz considers these people to be a "non-class of non-workers." They lack stable, continuous organization and cannot act as a unified class opposing capitalism. Therefore, from the perspective of left-wing political parties, the urgent issue now is not to resolve class conflicts arising from labor-capital contradictions, but to enable those outside the workforce to regain employment opportunities. At the same time, social movements no longer manifest as political struggles between one class and another, as in the past, but as democratic movements initiated by different social groups: new social movements in various forms, including the workers' movement, women's movement, Black movement, ecological movement, peace movement, and gay rights movement.

后马克思主义的领先者哈贝马斯认为，马克思以利益冲突为缘由的阶级斗争理论现在很难解释当今资本主义社会的现实。在早期资本主义阶段，由于生产领域存在资产阶级与无产阶级之间的利益矛盾，当这种利益矛盾被激化的时候，阶级间的利益冲突就演化为阶级斗争。但在晚期资本主义阶段，资本主义国家为了化解制度存在的合法性危机，采取了国家干预经济活动的措施，进而缓和了阶级对抗，使阶级斗争以一种较为温和的方式进行。比如，他们通过制定促进经济增长和繁荣的政策，对生产结构施加引导性的影响；通过建立社会保障制度，对资本主义产生的不良后果加以补救；通过把社会利害冲突限制在个人范围内，以消解阶级之间的利害冲突等。法国学者施瓦茨在解释西方社会工人阶级退却的原因时指出，由于工人阶级内部结构的多样化，工人队伍由五颜六色的不同阶层组成，新生代工人接受的教育以及选择的生活方式与过去存在很大的差别，这使得即使从事同一种劳动的工人，也会因为技术等级或价值观念的差异，难以形成统一的阶级意识和共同的身份认同感。尤其相对于有工作机会的在职工人，社会还在不断产生诸多的失业者和半失业者，这些人被高兹看作是“非工人的非阶级”。他们没有固定延续的组织，也无法作为一个整体阶级成为反资本主义的力量。因此，在左翼政党看来，现在的紧要问题不是解决劳资矛盾带来的阶级冲突，而是要使在工作之外的人重新获得就业机会。与此同时，社会运动也不是像过去那样表现为一个阶级与另一个阶级的政治斗争，而是由不同社会群体发起的民主运动：工人运动、妇女运动、黑人运动、生态运动、和平运动、同性恋运动等多种形式的新社会运动。

The post-Marxists represented by Laclau and Mouffe explain that, owing to rapid technological transfer and the increasing commodification occurring in late capitalism, a major trend is the gradual decline of “class” as a form of collective identity. Although the working class in Western countries has not disappeared, it has transformed from a unified collective into a fragmented subject. The differentiation and diversity of subject identities have dispersed the class that traditional theory posited as the revolutionary subject. Various inequalities still exist in contemporary society, and these inequalities may even intensify, but the characteristics of this inequality are not all equivalent to class inequality. Consequently, antagonism and struggle still exist in this society, but the forms of antagonism have multiplied and the subjects of antagonism have expanded. The traditional binary opposition has shifted toward a plural antagonism among different subject identities. That is, antagonism has extended from the socio-economic sphere to a broader socio-cultural sphere beyond the relations of production. Laclau states: “Countless new struggles have demonstrated a tendency to oppose new forms of subordination, emerging from the heart of society. Thus, it is precisely from the complex and diverse social relations opposing waste, protecting the environment, ecological movements, and so forth that antagonism and struggle arise; living environments, consumption, and various service industries have all become fields for resisting inequality and demanding new rights.” [10](P15) Therefore, in their view, the actual situation is that society is continuously fragmenting, the working class is continuously differentiating and declining in numbers, while various new strata and groups are constantly emerging, their positions complex and diverse. Particularly with the widespread rise of new social movements, the class struggle centered on the working class is transforming into social movements centered on citizens. In their view, new social movements—including feminist, ecological, anti-racist, anti-bureaucratic, anti-authoritarian, and anti-national oppression movements—are democratic struggles waged by the general populace for civil rights. Although the democratic demands raised by these plural subjects oppose various relations of subordination, they are not directly aimed at the capitalist system. Hence, they differ from the class struggle of liberation politics and cannot be easily explained by class dynamics. New forms of resistance and antagonism have shifted class struggle toward plural antagonism, manifesting as numerous new social movements (including civil rights movements, ecological movements, anti-globalization movements, etc.). These movements demonstrate the complexity of the social sphere and its forms of antagonism, involving identities that cannot be reduced to class positions and productivism.

以拉克劳和墨菲为代表的后马克思主义者解释道，由于快速的技术转移和在晚期资本主义所发生的不断增长的商品化，一个大趋势是作为集体认同构成形式的“阶级”在日趋衰落。虽然西方国家的工人阶级没有消失，但它由一个统一的集体成为一个破碎的主体，主体身份的差异性和多样化，使得传统理论中作为革命主体的阶级变得分散了。当今社会依然存在着各种不平等，而且不平等还会加剧，但这不平等的特征不是都等同于阶级的不平等。因之，这个社会还存在着对抗和斗争，但对抗的形式增多了，对抗的主体扩大了。传统意义上的二元对立走向了不同主体身份的多元对抗。也就是说，对抗从社会经济领域延伸到了生产关系之外的更为广泛的社会文化领域。拉克劳说：“无数新的斗争已经表明了反对新的从属形式的倾向，他们来自社会的心脏。因此，正是从反对浪费、保护环境、生态运动等复杂多样的社会关系中产生了对抗和斗争，居住环境、消费和各种服务行业都成为反抗不平等和要求新权利的领域。”[10](P15）因此说，现实的情形是社会在不断地分裂，工人阶级在不断地分化，数量在不断地减少，各种新阶层、新集团在不断涌起，其立场复杂多样。尤其是新社会运动的广泛兴起，使以工人阶级为主体的阶级斗争向着以公民为主体的社会运动转变。以他们之见，包括女权主义的、生态主义的、反种族歧视的、反官僚化的、反权力主义的、反民族压迫的新社会运动，是一般大众为争取公民权利而开展的民主斗争，这些多元主体提出的民主要求虽反对各种从属关系，但又不是直接针对资本主义制度，因而不同于解放政治学的阶级斗争，也无法轻易地用阶级动力学来解释。新的抵抗与对抗形式，使阶级斗争转向多元对抗，表现为许许多多的新社会运动（包括公民权运动、生态运动、反全球化运动等）。这些运动表明了社会领域及其对抗形式的复杂性，存在着不能被还原为阶级立场和生产主义的身份认同。

The British scholar Miliband, in his book *Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism*, points out that the theoretical framework of class struggle and class conflict meticulously constructed by Marx in the mid-19th century is no longer sufficient to explain the social reality since the 20th century. It is necessary to make substantive modifications to Marx’s model of class theory based on the facts of historical development after Marx. He argues that contemporary anti-capitalist movements are not only class-based macro-political movements but also micro-political movements constituted by plural subject identities such as nation, race, religion, gender, sexuality, and others. The issues raised by new social movements are important and universal, reflecting the proliferation of capitalist problems. However, the problem they pose is how to delineate a new political boundary to truly advance the process of democratic development.

英国学者密里本德在《当代资本主义的阶级斗争》一书中指出，马克思在19世纪中叶精心建树的阶级斗争和阶级冲突的理论框架已经不足以解释20世纪以来的社会现实，必须根据马克思以后历史发展的事实，对马克思的阶级理论模式作实质性的修改。他认为当代反资本主义的不仅是阶级性的宏观政治运动，而且还是以民族、种族、宗教、性别、性与其他多元主体身份构成的微观政治运动。新社会运动提出的问题具有重要性、普遍性，它反映了资本主义问题的增殖。但其所带来的问题是如何划定一个新的政治界线，从而真正推动民主发展的进程。

How should we view the issue of the extension of class struggle from the political sphere to the social sphere in contemporary Western countries? The author believes that as long as the capitalist system and wage-labor relations persist, the class relations, contradictions, and struggles between the working class and the bourgeoisie will not automatically dissolve, and the status, situation, and mission of the working class will not undergo fundamental change. Currently, the popular anti-capitalist social struggles emerging in Western countries show a tendency toward diversification in goals, forms, and content. They reflect the demands of the populace and their struggle for autonomous rights. Although they are not equivalent to class struggle, they contain elements of class struggle; only the subjects of struggle are more diverse, and the significance of struggle has shifted from the macro-political sphere to the micro-life sphere. It should be recognized that with the development of globalized capitalism, the middle class has undergone reorganization, and the situation of some sections of the working class has become more dire. In the 21st century, the institutionalization of trade unions has made contract negotiations and collective bargaining between labor and capital the main form of class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie. Only through socialist movements can the underlying problems of capitalism be ultimately resolved. Especially with capital and the bourgeoisie spreading worldwide under globalization, class structures and class relations have transcended national boundaries, and new global class issues are gradually emerging. The American scholar Navarro states: “Today, the main conflict worldwide does not stem from the conflict between North and South countries, i.e., developed and developing countries, but from the conflict between the ruling class alliance of North and South countries and the ruled class alliance of North and South countries.” [11] Therefore, the so-called theory of the extinction of class struggle is inaccurate.

如何看待当代西方国家阶级斗争从政治领域向社会领域延伸的问题呢？笔者认为，只要资本主义制度和雇佣劳动关系还存续，工人阶级与资产阶级之间的阶级关系、阶级矛盾和斗争就不会自动解除，工人阶级的地位、处境和使命也不会发生根本性的改变。当前，西方国家兴起的人民大众反资本主义的社会斗争在目标、形式和内容上呈现多元化倾向，它反映了民众的诉求和自主权利的争取，虽然其不等同于阶级斗争，但却包含了阶级斗争因素，只是斗争的主体更为多样化，斗争的意义从宏观政治领域转向了微观生活领域。应该看到，随着全球化资本主义的发展，中产阶级出现了改组，一些工人阶级的处境更加悲惨。21世纪的工会制度化使合同谈判和劳资双方讨价还价成为工人阶级和资产阶级之间阶级斗争的主要形式。而只有通过社会主义运动才能最终解决资本主义潜在的问题。尤其是随着全球化条件下资本和资产阶级奔向世界各地，阶级结构和阶级关系已越出一国范围，新的全球性阶级问题逐渐突显。美国学者纳瓦罗说：“如今世界范围内的主要冲突并不是来自于南北国家即发达国家与发展中国家的冲突，而是南北国家统治阶级联盟和南北国家被统治阶级联盟的冲突。”[11]因此，所谓阶级斗争熄灭论是不确切的。

References

参考文献

[1]1 Raymond Aron (1905-1983): French philosopher, sociologist, and political commentator, known for his critiques of Marxist theory and totalitarianism. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*: Volume 1 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[1] 马克思恩格斯选集：第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995.

[2]2 André Gorz (1923-2007): Austrian and French social philosopher and journalist, associated with existentialism and ecological politics, who theorized about the "non-class of non-workers" in post-industrial capitalism. Chris Harman. *The Changing Working Class* [M]. London, Chicago and Melbourne, 2011.

[2]Chris Harmem.The Changing Working Class[M].London Chicago And Melbourne,2011.

[3]3 Olivier Schwartz: French sociologist known for his work on the working class and social change. [German] Ulrich Beck. *Risk Society* [M]. Translated by He Bowen. Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2004.

[3][德]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻.南京：译林出版社，2004.

[4] [British] Richard Scase. *Class* [M]. Translated by Lei Yuqiong. Changchun: Jilin People’s Publishing House, 2005.

[4][英]理查德·斯凯思.阶级[M].雷玉琼.长春：吉林人民出版社，2005.

[5] [British] Michael Mann. *The Sources of Social Power*: Volume 2 [M]. Translated by Chen Haihong, et al. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2007.

[5] [英]迈克尔·曼.社会权力的来源：第2卷[M].陈海宏，等.上海：上海人民出版社，2007.

[6] [British] Ralf Dahrendorf. *Modern Social Conflict* [M]. Translated by Lin Rongyuan. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2016.

[6][英]拉尔夫·达伦多夫.现代社会冲突[M].林荣远.北京：中国人民大学出版社，2016.

[7] Marx, Engels. *The Communist Manifesto* [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1964.

[7]马克思，恩格斯.共产党宣言[M].北京：人民出版社，1964.

[8] [American] Daniel Bell. *The Coming of Post-Industrial Society* [M]. Translated by Gao Xian, et al. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1984.

[8][美]丹尼尔·贝尔.后工业社会的来临[M].高铦，等.北京：商务印书馆1984.

[9] [American] Alvin Gouldner. *The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class* [M]. Translated by Gu Xiaohui, et al. Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2006.

[9][美]艾尔文·古德纳.知识分子的未来和新阶级的兴起[M].顾晓辉，等.南京：江苏人民出版社，2006.

[10] [British] Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe. *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics* [M]. Translated by Yin Shuguang, et al. Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 2003.

[10][英]恩斯特·拉克劳，查特尔·墨菲.领导权与社会主义的策略——走向激进民主政治[M].尹树广，等.哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社，2003.

[11] Vincent Navarro. “The Worldwide Class Struggle” [J]. *Monthly Review*, 2006, 58(4).

[11] Vincent Navarro. The Worldwide Class Struggle[J].Monthly Review,2006,58(4).

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑